Gloster F.5/34

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

ringo

Recruit
9
0
Jan 13, 2006
LONDON
Since the RAF appeared to have Spit and Hurricane production tied up, do you think the single seat Gloster F.5/34 would have been a good addition to FAA in the point defence roll?
Lastly what would would aircraft be called Gloster Gull, Gremlin, Guardian etc.
 
I doubt it.

Given that the Mercury radial had difficulty producing its rated horsepower and that the thick wing of he unnamed Gloster fighter had very similar drawbacks to that of the Hurricane, it was probably pointless getting the F.5/34 off the ground when the Spitfire and Hurricane both demonstrated superior speed and climb for around the same weight, as well as having better potential for development.

The Gloster entry was almost a 'super Gladiator'; much of the fuselage structure seems to be borrowed from the previous Gloster fighter. In many ways it looks similar to the Japanese A6M Zero, but without the smooth lines or pleasing curves of the Mitsubishi design

A combination of production delays and the superior performance of the Spitfire and Hurricane stopped the Gloster entry from every really being an option. Far more interesting would of been a proposed version with a 1050hp Pegasus XVIII engine, instead of the 850hp Mercury. Despite being slightly larger and heavier, this would of really helped the poor power to weight ratio and bumped up level speed a bit. The main problem would of been that the early Pegasus engines had trouble with reliability and power, and weren't much good above 15,000 feet.This might of been a disadvantage in a BoB style engagement. It couldnt quite push out the horses at high altitude that the Merlin could (even the single stage ones).

Still, with 1000-1050 hp engine, the Gloster fighter might of had some promise.
 
cheddar cheese said:
Digressing slightly, the Gloster F.9/37 twin engined heavy fighter looked promising...

The nose looks pretty beau-ish.
 
IMO the F.5/34 had more in common with the Dutch D.XXI than the Zero.
The D.XXI flew with the Mercury, it also flew with the Krestrel, Twin Wasp, and H-S 12Y, plans were in hand for versions with Hercules, Merlin, and
DB600H.
The Taurus would have been another likely alternate.
 
Yes a small order for this Gloster single seater would have been an insurance policy against any problems with the Merlin.
The top speed of this aircraft wasn't that much less than the Hurricane prototype, and this would be improved with a better engine later mercury or Taurnas.
Name - I think 'Guardian' - need to start with a 'G'.
And also the Gloster twin should also have been ordered, would've been a better plane to have than the Blenheim fighter! Name for that - howabout the 'Gemini'?
 
The F.5/34 with a Tarus engine for some extra power to allow for the inevitable increase in weight which would have been incurred with Self Sealing tanks and some armour, may not have been the best fighter around.

That said, it would have been a huge improvement on the Skua/Gladiator/Roc combination that the FAA had to use at the start of the war and would probably have been better than the Fulmar as well.
 
the FAA got little priority for fighters partly because they were seen to need only torpedo aircraft, and partly because, well, who the hell were they expected to go up against looking at pre-war carrier powers? Which European power's carrier fighters were they supposed to be fighting?
 
I reckon a better insurance fighter would have been the little Miles M20. Faster than a Hurricane even with fixed undercarriage, it would have made a great emergency fighter
 

Attachments

  • miles m20.jpg
    miles m20.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 761
yes but how long would it've taken to change over production lines? to retrain pilots? it's the change over in production times and the fact it came too late that she wasn't ordered..............
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back